[swift-evolution] [swift-evolution-announce] [Review] SE-0035 Limiting inout capture to @noescape contexts

[T.J. Usiyan]

+1 from me. The "shadow copy" behavior was a tricky problem to explain.

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Kevin Ballard via swift-evolution <
swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016, at 05:30 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
> >       * What is your evaluation of the proposal?
>
> +1. Seems like a good idea. Shadow copies of inout parameters are
> confusing.
>
> >       * Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a
> change to Swift?
>
> Yes, it's a surprising edge case that can be hard to understand if you
> don't know what's going on.
>
> >       * Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of Swift?
>
> I think it's fairly neutral.
>
> >       * If you have you used other languages or libraries with a similar
> feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
>
> The only language that comes to mind that might have a similar situation
> is C++ with pass-by-ref parameters and C++11 lambdas, and I'm not quite
> sure how those interact. I assume that if you capture the parameter by-ref
> in the lambda, it'll capture the original reference, but in that case it
> would not be safe to have the lambda out-live the reference (i.e. there'd
> be no shadow copy made). But I've not actually researched this topic.
>
> >       * How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick
> reading, or an in-depth study?
>
> A quick reading.
>
> -Kevin Ballard
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20160219/7d76be89/attachment.html>